What, out of these, is holding gaming back the most?
the community
17.6% (109)
17.6% (109)
large corporations (like EA. Activision)
44.1% (274)
44.1% (274)
mobile (and casual) gaming
3.9% (24)
3.9% (24)
critics
1% (6)
1% (6)
the media
6.4% (40)
6.4% (40)
other
13% (81)
13% (81)
none. The industry is moving at its own pace, and nothing is holding it back.
13.8% (86)
13.8% (86)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: What is holding gaming back, as an industry?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 

Kahunaburger:

Foolproof:

Kahunaburger:

Shade did it a decade earlier and did it better.

According to the internet, there is no game called Shade. There is a piece of interactive fiction called Shade that is absolutely nothing in the slightest like COD4's nuke scene, so I have to assume you are talking completely out of your ass.

It addresses player character death and the role of interactivity in player character death in a much more interesting and mature fashion. So yeah, decade earlier, better.

Ah, so, completely different in every single way, but a whole lot wankier and less effective. Got it.

Foolproof:

Kahunaburger:

Foolproof:
According to the internet, there is no game called Shade. There is a piece of interactive fiction called Shade that is absolutely nothing in the slightest like COD4's nuke scene, so I have to assume you are talking completely out of your ass.

It addresses player character death and the role of interactivity in player character death in a much more interesting and mature fashion. So yeah, decade earlier, better.

Ah, so, completely different in every single way, same basic subject matter but a whole lot wankier more elegant and less effective. Tom Clancy. Got it.

Fixed for you :D

Much as CoD 4 is an above-average shooter with okay writing, scripted events didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there.

Kahunaburger:

Foolproof:

Kahunaburger:

It addresses player character death and the role of interactivity in player character death in a much more interesting and mature fashion. So yeah, decade earlier, better.

Ah, so, completely different in every single way, same subject matter but a whole lot wankier more elegant and less effective. Tom Clancy. Got it.

Fixed for you :D

Much as CoD 4 is a pretty above-average shooter, scripted events didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there.

Was there a nuke? No? Different subject matter. Did it come during the middle of an actual game, or in the middle of a boring pseudo-bullshit game with bad controls and a "message"? Then its wankier. Did it influence game design? Clearly fucking not, as no-ones ever heard of it, but the fact that COD4's scene came at the conclusion of a successful FPS mission - i.e. the point where you should be in the clear, means that it was far, far superior in terms of laying out the impact and emotion.

Like, there's absolutely no comparrison - only a complete idiot or a pretentious wanker would think Shade could hold a candle to COD4.

This poll should be check boxes instead of mutually exclusive. Ultimately, I had to pick Big Corporations, but I feel that media/press is a substantial influence as well, because the desires and enjoyment of people attracted to and working in the field of journalism does not constitute a representative cross section of all people.

But the major detriment is the dollar drive for companies like EA. They recently cancelled Bulletstorm 2, because it wasn't going to be a multi-million dollar cash cow. This is the problem, we can't have nice things if everyone has to develop a bland, casual-friendly mass-appeal piece of tastelessness.

Foolproof:

Kahunaburger:

Foolproof:
Ah, so, completely different in every single way, same subject matter but a whole lot wankier more elegant and less effective. Tom Clancy. Got it.

Fixed for you :D

Much as CoD 4 is a pretty above-average shooter, scripted events didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there.

Was there a nuke? No? Different subject matter. Did it come during the middle of an actual game, or in the middle of a boring pseudo-bullshit game with bad controls and a "message"? Then its wankier. Did it influence game design? Clearly fucking not, as no-ones ever heard of it, but the fact that COD4's scene came at the conclusion of a successful FPS mission - i.e. the point where you should be in the clear, means that it was far, far superior in terms of laying out the impact and emotion.

Like, there's absolutely no comparrison - only a complete idiot or a pretentious wanker would think Shade could hold a candle to COD4.

I'm gonna have to call Poe's Law on this one - I can't tell if you're actually a kid whose gaming experience begins and ends with CoD, or pretending to be one. In the case of the former, give it a couple years and come back to this question when you're a little older :)

Kahunaburger:

Foolproof:

Kahunaburger:

Fixed for you :D

Much as CoD 4 is a pretty above-average shooter, scripted events didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there.

Was there a nuke? No? Different subject matter. Did it come during the middle of an actual game, or in the middle of a boring pseudo-bullshit game with bad controls and a "message"? Then its wankier. Did it influence game design? Clearly fucking not, as no-ones ever heard of it, but the fact that COD4's scene came at the conclusion of a successful FPS mission - i.e. the point where you should be in the clear, means that it was far, far superior in terms of laying out the impact and emotion.

Like, there's absolutely no comparrison - only a complete idiot or a pretentious wanker would think Shade could hold a candle to COD4.

I'm gonna have to call Poe's Law on this one - I can't tell if you're actually a kid whose gaming experience begins and ends with CoD, or pretending to be one. In the case of the former, give it a couple years and come back to this question when you're a little older :)

Ah, pretentious wanker - the kind who actually thinks Dear Esther is any good. Gotcha. Thank you for clearing that up.

Daystar Clarion:

Sanat:
Consoles. 'Nuff said.

You mean the biggest reason why videogames are so popular and why dev companies have such huge budgets?

Yeah, consoles are definately holding gaming back.

I guess he is pissed off because if it wasnt for consoles and games like Smash Bross and Dragon Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi then older games from the PC like One Must Fall 2097 would have more praise for being the first fighting game with RPG elements

Or maybe because he believes that System Shock 2 deserves more respect from the console people who loves Bioshock (a game that was marketed more on the console favor and wont be know by the PC fans until much later even if it was released on the same day)

Foolproof:

Kahunaburger:

Foolproof:
Was there a nuke? No? Different subject matter. Did it come during the middle of an actual game, or in the middle of a boring pseudo-bullshit game with bad controls and a "message"? Then its wankier. Did it influence game design? Clearly fucking not, as no-ones ever heard of it, but the fact that COD4's scene came at the conclusion of a successful FPS mission - i.e. the point where you should be in the clear, means that it was far, far superior in terms of laying out the impact and emotion.

Like, there's absolutely no comparrison - only a complete idiot or a pretentious wanker would think Shade could hold a candle to COD4.

I'm gonna have to call Poe's Law on this one - I can't tell if you're actually a kid whose gaming experience begins and ends with CoD, or pretending to be one. In the case of the former, give it a couple years and come back to this question when you're a little older :)

Ah, pretentious wanker - the kind who actually thinks Dear Esther is any good. Gotcha. Thank you for clearing that up.

Actually, I think Dear Esther is overrated. It shares a critical flaw with the various CoD death scenes - no use of interactivity in any interesting way. Funny that you mention it, because I was wondering what game Dear Esther reminded me of.

Publishers strangling creativity for the sake of moar cash.

I think gaming is getting better on some levels, but on another I can see it as getting worse. As games become more in depth, more complex and sophisticated (which are good things most of the time, though simplicity has served well to make great games too) at the same time there are things that are getting worse. It's becoming more about money to many of the larger publishers, which means they're more willing to run with shadier business practices. The marketing campaigns are mind-numbingly fucking stupid, DLC which in concept is a great idea is being abused I believe and even while there are some great new innovations (generally seen in the indie area) other areas (such as more AAA titles) tend to rely on tried and true formulas, thus resulting in a whole ton of the same old shit littering the shelves.

I've said it a ton of times before, but as gaming gets more and more popular, the industry will become greedier and greedier, and more and more cutthroat to the point where we won't recognize it anymore.

At the same time, I'm beginning to see some real potential from the independent area. Those Jumpstarter projects for one, Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun.

BoogityBoogityMan:

why is COD popular? Because the multiplayer provides a true gaming experince, that is one that engages the player from minute one and is totally focused on keeping them interacting with the game.
So pointing at that game and saying how crappy it is shows a real ignorance of what games are actually supposed to be.

It didn't engross or engage me for one second. It reminded me of a mixture of Counterstrike and Halo, either of which I don't find particularly engaging or interesting.

High production values and popularity alone do not make for a great gaming experience. Yet, people constantly insist that I'm wrong just because I don't like something that's popular.

While most groups are at fault most of the blame lies at the feet of gamers.

Gamers moan that they are sick of the industy pumping out the same old FPS and how more unique, different or niche games are becoming rarer every day.

The problem is that they then go out and buy the next block buster COD, Gears or Mass Effect at launch. While that intresting niche game like Binary Domain or whatever can wait a couple of months until it hits the bargin bin.

If folk could only have a bit of self restraint and support smaller publishers who make intresting IPs, gaming would be so much better. I know we all only have a finite amount of cash to spend on our hobby, but we dont need to give it all to EA and Activition.

I think the genre labels we have today are stupidly restricting and cause more overall harm to games then they do good.

8bitmaster:
I'm working on some research for an article on the future of gaming, and I would like some numbers from you guys, as this is a gaming forum. What I would like to ask you is, what do you think is holding the gaming industry back the most? Community uproars like what has happened with the Mass Effect 3 endings, bigger corporations like EA who either spit out sequels every year, don't listen to the community unless there is large scale feedback, or other reasons, mobile gaming, gaming critics, the large scale media, or something else. I would like some insight besides just voting if that is at all possible. I would like to know what actual people think about this kind of thing.

edit: I updated a few of the poll options, at least I hope they update.

Research for an article eh?

Depends on how you want to frame the argument. To say it is being held back, one must present a case that their is some "promised land" of gaming that is to be realized.

Gaming like any industry (and it is an industry that produces products) runs in cycles. Effectively once the CPU hit the 80286 "gaming" had already begun to find itself in the "genre" archetypes. So that is a limit, the next limit is a distinct lack of technically trained people, so we see a lot of games utilizing "engines". Large publishers drive streamlining processes, which effectively eliminates large scale innovation. Materials are reaching a limit, so there is a computational limit per unit heat per unit space, heat requires energy... and now we have battery limits.

I could go on and on, but why. When I was younger just about everyone I knew who was into computer science and gaming, could program, played pencil, paper, dice role playing games, got into computational and mathematical theories... nowadays... that shit is gone, gone and forgotten. Maybe the money left it, the interest left it, but most folk I know that are serious designers, don't fuck about with games anymore, and if they do... it's personal project shit.

When you write your paper try to use facts, do some research, write a real article...

mfeff:

8bitmaster:
I'm working on some research for an article on the future of gaming, and I would like some numbers from you guys, as this is a gaming forum. What I would like to ask you is, what do you think is holding the gaming industry back the most? Community uproars like what has happened with the Mass Effect 3 endings, bigger corporations like EA who either spit out sequels every year, don't listen to the community unless there is large scale feedback, or other reasons, mobile gaming, gaming critics, the large scale media, or something else. I would like some insight besides just voting if that is at all possible. I would like to know what actual people think about this kind of thing.

edit: I updated a few of the poll options, at least I hope they update.

Research for an article eh?

Depends on how you want to frame the argument. To say it is being held back, one must present a case that their is some "promised land" of gaming that is to be realized.

Gaming like any industry (and it is an industry that produces products) runs in cycles. Effectively once the CPU hit the 80286 "gaming" had already begun to find itself in the "genre" archetypes. So that is a limit, the next limit is a distinct lack of technically trained people, so we see a lot of games utilizing "engines". Large publishers drive streamlining processes, which effectively eliminates large scale innovation. Materials are reaching a limit, so there is a computational limit per unit heat per unit space, heat requires energy... and now we have battery limits.

I could go on and on, but why. When I was younger just about everyone I knew who was into computer science and gaming, could program, played pencil, paper, dice role playing games, got into computational and mathematical theories... nowadays... that shit is gone, gone and forgotten. Maybe the money left it, the interest left it, but most folk I know that are serious designers, don't fuck about with games anymore, and if they do... it's personal project shit.

When you write your paper try to use facts, do some research, write a real article...

I know, and I have done actual research, its that I do need to take a user side argument, because that's the kind of argument I'm trying to make of, what the developers/critics/media think versus people who are actual fans, and people outside the actual industry. I could easily pound out an article with research about the future of the industry from information on developers as well as data from analysts and past articles, but that isn't fresh. I'm trying something different.

i think its largely external reasons why its being held back, the gaming industry is HUGE now but alot of people who arnt involved with it see it as the thing corrupting our youth (just like tv, cinema, elvis, MP3s, and easily accessible literature were)
but however most of the big games in the industry also dont seem to be growing up (becoming a little less mature) which doesnt really help our case

8bitmaster:
-snip-

Hey man I get what your saying, really I do. Define what you mean by "held back", and I will certainly offer up another opinion on why A hasn't made it to B yet. Whats B? Or is it more an article on consumer criticism of the industry as a whole?

That being the case... how about this...

Every cycle, tends to take whatever the product I.P. is and re-cycle it. That is to say that a game that ended on a particular note, must go back and spend resources and time, to bring a new audience on "iteration 2" of that I.P. up to "speed". Gaming in general from an industrial stand point will again follow a trend so if shooters are hot, or post apocalyptic is hot, that is what-ever the I.P. is, is going to be trended or massaged into.

I won't talk about Mass Effect, but I will mentioned Rail Road Tycoon.

First game, technical, interesting. Railroad 2, refined excellence, a couple expansions later... made for Tycoon 2 Platinum; easily one of the best Tycoon games ever. Railroad 3, went to a 3d engine, but reduced the complexity of the game play (streamlining). Finally "Sid M.'s Railroads" totally streamlined, with multi-player... the game is a POS from many technical standpoints... but kind of interesting online. (at least it was, because no one plays it anymore).

Ultimately, these are products. Designed to capture the maximal amount of consumer interest for a given iteration per a given input of resources including marketing. Design is thus influenced by the market forces (or perceived market forces) in which the product is to be released in.

As I mentioned before... holding them back from what?

mfeff:

8bitmaster:
-snip-

snip

So what I mean by holding back, is not holding back "from" something, but held back say, the dark ages held back technology for hundreds of years. Since we are a younger industry, we get the biggest negative focus from media as most of them "don't understand" the industry as it was barely starting when they were younger. Because of that, we become the big target, and therefore end up with negative press and connotations from things such as, the 6 days in felusia fiasco Extra Credits talked about where projects can be canceled, and companies can be shut down from bad press. This is what sets us apart from the movie industry. The older crowd doesn't "get" what games can do for controversial ideas in terms of story, and thus holding us back from creating uniquely engaging stories that would actually have an impact on society.

Beyond that, the idea of the industry being held back due to large corporations pumping out sequels and not risking money with interesting new idea (which a lot of people talked about), is holding us back from a creative standpoint, because a lot of them (psychonauts, mirror's edge, etc), while they do gain cult followings of loyal fans, don't get enough sales as compared to games like Call of Duty sequels that companies know will make money.

Another idea that holds us back as an industry is reviewers. Did you hear about what happened with Kane and Lynch? Yahtzee discussed it in his Kane and Lynch 2 review, someone gave the first one a bad review and got fired for it. More and more companies are paying off, or "convincing" reviewers to rate games as good to improve their sales, or get fired otherwise. Besides "professional" reviewers, if you were to say go read 1 star reviews on games on Amazon, or hell even some of the 5 star reviews, among the good ones there are ignorant reviews that don't help us at all, and are therefore useless. Plus with things like metacritic trying to turn all review scales into a single one gives us a very skewed look at how "good" gaming is, which means we can't judge games from reviews as we could from movies or books.

Lastly, the companies don't view us as equals. Look at how Ubisoft battled piracy for their last 3-4 titles and you'll get my point. The AAA industry still isn't sure how to battle piracy in ways that say, CD Projekt Red has with the Witcher 2. They just don't seem to get that all they need to do is release demos, fix bugs, and remove all DRM and 90% of the people who pirate it after that are just doing it "just because", and suing those who do so is reasonable at that point. We just aren't treated as customers, but sacks of cash who will buy almost anything they throw at us, and DRM is perfect to stop those "filthy PC gamer thieves" who don't want to give us money. Console games get pirated all the time! Until companies understand this, we are being held back as an industry.

Essentially we as gamers know whats going on from the outside, and for the most part those of us that truly care to advance the industry may not be a part of it, and therefore aren't listened to, and thats the problem. If we can get the attention to help them as consumers, essentially we can fight for a good future in gaming.

8bitmaster:

mfeff:

8bitmaster:
-snip-

snip

-snip-

There are a couple points here worthy of addressing. So in an attempt to be brief going to try to make an attempt at countering some of the points and offering further solutions.

1) The Dark Age, "Don't Understand", Six Days in Fallujah cancellation, and Extra Credits.

-My perspective.

As a frame of reference... I am in my mid 30's, family, kids, wife, career in EE with a strong background in Aerospace. Been playing games since pong was new, and use many "video game design" principles in electrical design. Not only have I worked with veterans in a professional capacity, worked as a contractor for military equipment support, but have counseled veterans in many different capacities. Heck, even worked on video game crap.

The Dark Age - fallacy

This argument smacks of a false dichotomy begging an excluded middle. In the information age the available knowledge for software engineering is readily available, education of people including the literacy rate is higher now than it has ever been in human history. The first amendment covers the medium, so in that, and as it is clearly evident, if one wanted to take a picture of a dick, and make a game "dick-tac-toe" and sell it on an Iphone... one is able to do that.

Human beings have never been "free-er" than they are today. If anything is missing today it is a distinct lack of a proper philosophical dialog utilizing empiricism, relying on lazy rationalism and "self evident" common sense... which is simply false. In that I think there is an argument... leading into...

"Don't Understand"

To go further and as a segway to further notation, begging a general consensus in and of itself, is a fallacy. Comprehension (of the masses) is not required for work to progress and continue in any medium. Does the average guy in the street understand fourier waves of enzymatic kinetics? No. Does that stop me from working on those projects? No.

Six Days in Fallujah

I (personally) had some pretty serious issues with this game. Fundamentally the "argument" that I was perceiving appears more like a "muddying the waters", to justify a release of a game depicting a hot button issue for the first intent, of making money. Using the collective conscience of the people engaged in the conflict as a means of sailing a product into a marketplace.

The difficulty here is that of narrative story telling, appears to have been infringed upon. Nothing could of been further from the truth. The point was to use the event to sell a product, not comment on the event itself in a meaningful narrative way. Watching the interviews the developer seemed to want to include the stories of those who fought and died in the conflict to "memorialize" the fighters. Yet they didn't contact those people's families for research of narrative to pursue that avenue... ultimately it was just "some shit they said" at the eleventh hour. Konami... well ultimately it is Konami's call as to what they are going to fund and or not fund... last I checked they were not purveyors of fine art.

It's an investment, and the money went south for the winter. Happens.

Did they get steam rolled on the news? Yep. Was that inevitable? Yep. Had they had done the homework they would of been "ok". They didn't, they wanted to play "artist" and got their shit handed to em. They could of declined the interviews, and rolled right along. They didn't, in that, it "appears" that they tried to play the "media train" game (Electronic Arts is NOTORIOUS for this), to capture some free press and drive up interest.

That all said, considering some of the potentially tough legal difficulties of the project the money people (whom engaged in this to make money) pulled out after weighing the cost of production to yield of sales, to potential bad press and lawsuits, ultimately decided the well was dry.

The developers, believing in their project, are certainly perfectly capable of developing the title using crowd funding, or supporting the project themselves. But they didn't... no money in it. These are not "starving artist" with a story to tell. This is a business, which became sour and was abandoned.

Sadly it became an abandoned outpost for rallying around, some attempt to demonstrate artistic infringement. Nonsense.

Extra Credits

Shrug... Mr. Portnow is pretty cool, but I (personally) don't think shit of Daniel Floyd. I don't think shit of his ideas, his exposition, his lazy rhetoric, and his contradictory statements. If he wants to make games, he should just go make them; not sit around and talk nonsense about them. It's just my personal take on it, not worth much.

Have controversial elements of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars been used as inspiration in video games? Yep. Battlefield 3 (F/A-18 scene) and the wiki-leaks attack helicopter incident share very similar aesthetics. Didn't stop them, they didn't go on the news... that's the point.

-I fail to see anything being held back here.

Ultimately I think perhaps you see 6 days as being a narrative opportunity, I certainly see it as a cash grab. Neither of us know much beyond our scant evidence which way it "would" of been. Employing Occam's razor ... I am of the opinion, cash grab, narrative being secondary or tertiary "at best". Had they had just made the damn thing, and let the work speak for itself, maybe it would of been great. I really doubt it. It was bullshit. Always was.

To qualify the "narrative vision", I would need it explained to me why 6 days utilizes "Regenerating Health", "run and gun mechanics". Sure it had a "consultant" but what was his purpose? Give legitimacy to the project, nothing more.

Remember Homefront?

The writer of "Red Dawn" worked on that... thing was a joke. Part of the advertisement, nothing more.

2) Industry Purse Strings

I agree, but this is in many industries not just video games. Having of personally worked in and around almost a dozen different industries in my time, it's the same story everywhere.

Innovation is a four letter word, usually spelled $$$$.

Heck, when I work on projects I may spend as much as 6 weeks to 6 months researching patents "just" to avoid potential lawsuits.

Look at this asshole:

http://gamepolitics.com/2010/06/15/edge-games-slaps-ea-suit-over-mirror%E2%80%99s-edge

I remember some douche-bag filing a patent on "mirror surfaces" in 3d spaces... can't take a dump without getting sued.

3) "Journalistic Integrity"

No Disagreement here, but that is really not anything new. It's a business, gaming websites facilitate that business.

4) Consumer

image

Patcher from GT said some time ago that the biggest problem of the video game industry was "chasing success", recently he said it was the "gamer" (consumer themselves) that whined.

There may be a paradigm shift occurring in this industry as the industry becomes more of an industry. I don't disagree with that. It (video games) are becoming a "big time" business. It has attracted many sharks.

Best part is, the individual, or small teams are still able to produce a product that may get some time in the sun, making some money outside of the big publisher chain. That's pretty awesome. It's always been that way though. Share-ware was doing this ages ago. It's how I.D. software got it's start.

Publisher does not "owe" anything to anyone. Consumer does not "owe" anything to anyone. A developer (as artist) (as independent) does not owe anything to anyone.

The key here... self education. Call bullshit on bullshit.

image

Downside as someone interested in making a living in this field...

As "Sway" Angelina Jollie said in "Gone in 60 Seconds"... "It's twice as hard when it's honest".

People been "copying" stuff since stuff was able to be "copied". There are a lot of problems with it one both sides of the debate... on many sides of the debate. Nature of the beast... consequence of the industry... could write whole papers on it and never get anywhere.

Realistically from my end the suggestion I offer is "make your own shit". Heck I use Aurora toolset to test out ideas all the time, many that have next to nothing to do with games.

As I have said, and will say again, what is it supposed to be doing, where is it supposed to be going?

It's never been easier to make content at a respectable level. This industry is "wide ass" open. Look at aviation, man, you gatta have DEEEEEEEP pockets to get anything done in that field. Video games? A FUCKING JOKE, any asshole with a calculator may make some content and sell it on. Looking for a guarantee? Nope. That's not going to happen and that is life.

Even Leonardo da Vinci died in poverty.

The myth... is the myth of the artist, video games as art, nonsense and bullshit. They can be, but 99% of the time, that is not the intention of the product. Perhaps an emergent quality of a product, like an old Jaguar, or classic rare game, a cult film.

Maybe, just maybe, it could be... but this medium is EXTREMELY technical. Borrows so heavily from so many different mediums that the only "decent" word to describe it is "trans-medium"... and the individual has to "know" not just speculate, but "know" a ton of shit to build from the ground up, anything new or worth while.

It takes capitalistic societies to have ever made this stuff in the first place, it WILL take market forces to clean it up. We just have to let the market work and give it time, self educate, make our own stuff.

I struggle with the debate, cause I just don't see one.

--edit to add some details.

http://www.gamefront.com/sopa-why-i-cant-defend-the-game-industry-anymore/

This is a good read, and it may help your article. Take it easy, be watching this thread for activity.

I think publishers have too much power currently. Almost all big releases now are "safe" products that have very low risk. Sequels to huge franchises are an example of this. Nobody wants to spend millions of dollars on a game that might not sell so well. Innovation and freshness is stifling.

StBishop:
The market. The fact that it's a service industry rather than an expressionist industry.

I understand that money from blockbusters allows risks to be taken, but bloated production costs and a risk averse production culture (not to mention buying culture) is holding back the development of gaming in my view.

Also, publishers being upset about pre-owned.

pandorum:
Hardware like DVD limiting games development as digital is good but then they can nickle and dime us Xbox needs Blu-ray bite the bullet Microsoft.

They're using carts.

Blue ray is not going to be in the next Xbox, the carts are faster at data streaming than bluray and can potentially hold more data.

potentially yes but I need more info before I sail out on that one. But what is with all the cooperate hate? they were once small companies that people like all of us brought from, that made them big they did not just spout up from hell you know.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked